Anti-hunters, the best responses to shut them up!
This is the title of the most recent defense the ragazine Grand View Outdoors has splayed across its website
All I can say is that if what they present in the article above(click on link to read)
is the BEST they can come up with, it should make anti-hunters laugh All I can say is that IF what they present in the following article, (The best answer to any anti-hunter attackmore than shut them up!
The BEST the writer of this article could come up with in justifying hunting was to dredge up the flawed and feeble North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM)…again. And again, repeat the self-delusional lie that it was only hunters, actually one it seems, e.g. Teddy Roosevelt, that were totally responsible for "saving" wildlife from…hunters who killed just to kill, like…Teddy Roosevelt! Remember he gladly killed the "last" of many predators (who, to my recollection are "wildlife"!). But re-exposing that lie is for another time. The bulk of the article rests on again the mistaken belief that the NAM is somehow the definitive, the BEST response to why hunters are the penultimate conservationists. So, though I have written extensively on the NAM before, I think it is again time to revisit, counterpoint by counterpoint as to why the NAM is the WORSE response hunters can make to justify why they think they are conservationists and demonstrates that they truly are NOT.
First, a point of clarification, hunters would have those of us who don't (or as in my case, no longer) hunt that the NAM has to do with "wildlife" and "conservation". To hunters there is really only one type of wildlife worth conserving, game species, species they can hunt and kill. So, to not repeat myself too often in my rebuttal of this best response article, I recommend that anyone reading it or the NAM, substitute "game" wherever they see the word "wildlife". As for the concept of conservation, I will simply say that "managing for more game in the bag" (the stated or understood goal of all game agencies) is NOT conservation. So, by rights the NAM should be titled: The North American Model of Game Management, screw the rest of the other 99% of the wildlife species out there. But again, more details on that for a later time.
First, a point of clarification, hunters would have those of us who don't (or as in my case, no longer) hunt that the NAM has to do with "wildlife" and "conservation". To hunters there is really only one type of wildlife worth conserving, game species, species they can hunt and kill. So, to not repeat myself too often in my rebuttal of this best response article, I recommend that anyone reading it or the NAM, substitute "game" wherever they see the word "wildlife". As for the concept of conservation, I will simply say that "managing for more game in the bag" (the stated or understood goal of all game agencies) is NOT conservation. So, by rights the NAM should be titled: The North American Model of Game Management, screw the rest of the other 99% of the wildlife species out there. But again, more details on that for a later time.
Ok, having made that clarification, lets revisit, again, the 7 "sisters" of the NAM, as the author of this article has done. Though I could, and have written pages, others have written books, on it, I will try to keep my rebuttal of each as succinct as the author's supposed justifications as to why this will "shut-up" the opposition.
# 1 – Wildlife is held in the public trust: Natural resources and wildlife on public lands are managed to ensure current and future generations always have wildlife and wild places to enjoy.
Not surprisingly, the author has little to say about how this supports hunters as conservationists or even justifies hunting. Maybe that is because hunting does NOTHING about insuring that "current and future generations always have wildlife and wild places to enjoy" In fact, hunters gladly embrace activities, fracking, road development, timber harvest, that are known to be detrimental to both wildlife and wild places. Why? Because these activities either increase the desired game species or increase their access to kill these desired game species. On the other hand, hunters traditionally fight the designation of "wild places" for future generations to enjoy such as wilderness areas or National Parks/Monuments. Why? Again, they fear they may have to walk or, shudder, ride a horse into these areas to hunt!Or simply because they are not allowed to kill something there!As for wildlife, they will eagerly sacrifice wildlife that they think gets in the way of more game in the bag. They will gladly prevent future generations from hearing a wolf howl, glimpsing a cougar, standing in awe of a grizzly bear. Why? Because they erroneously think that these animals keep them from getting more game in the bag. What it boils down to is the only wildlife and wild place they want to ensure for current and future generations are the ducks and the deer…period. Who do they want to preserve them for? The last time I checked, only 5% of the population hunted. I would not construe that as being the "public".
# 2 – Prohibition on commerce of dead wildlife: Commercial hunting and sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure sustainability of wildlife populations.
# 2 – Prohibition on commerce of dead wildlife: Commercial hunting and sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure sustainability of wildlife populations.
How this makes hunters conservationists eludes me! Just because they are prohibited from selling animals THEY kill, does not make them conservationists. Also, last time I checked, the hundreds of thousands of furbearing animals that are trapped are dead wildlife that are commercially sold! This is one, just one of the hypocritical parts of the NAM. Why is it not ok to kill a deer and sell its meat (but you can sell the hide!) but perfectly ok to kill a beaver or fox and sell its fur (but throw the meat into the garbage)? Does not the commercial trade in animal hides threaten the sustainability of these wildlife populations? Should not hunters, as conservationists vehemently oppose the commercial fur trade? Should they not insist that you can only kill a fox IF the fur is for your own personal use? Not some rich European heiress? Again, this sister, nor hunters, has nothing to do with conservation.
#3- Democratic Rule of Law: Hunting and fishing laws are created through the public process where everyone (my emphasis) has the opportunity and responsibility to develop systems of wildlife conservation and use.
IF this sister were even remotely followed by hunters, they would INSIST that the other 95% of the population is represented, IN PROPORTION in this so called public process. Hunter would INSIST that the whole population, by popular ballot, determine what species are hunted and when. On the contrary, what hunters believe in is that they and only they should decide what animals should be killed…by them! Hunting rules and regulations, including what can or cannot be killed by hunters is not decided by public process of everyone but decided by hunters for hunters. They do not WANT to provide the opportunity of the rest of the population to participate and have constructed a system to prevent this public process (again another topic for another time). How many states have wildlife commissions that proportionally represent the non-hunting or for that matter, the anti-hunting public (last time I looked even anti-hunters were part of this public that should have a say). The truth of the matter is that this tenant by itself is a screaming testimony to why hunters are NOT conservationists nor even believe in the Democratic rule of law.
#4 Hunting opportunity for all. Every citizen as an opportunity, under the law, to hunt and fish….
Again, as I have asked many times before what does this have to do even remotely with conservation? Also, as only 5% of us partake in this "opportunity", is this meant to mean that the other 95% somehow are NOT conservationists?? I don't think that most of us, true the anti-hunters would disagree, non-hunters would not object to this tenant IF we had a say through the public process (see #3) as to what should or should not be hunted. This then is just a self-serving statement that has nothing to do with conservation.
# 5- Non-frivolous use: Individuals may legally kill certain wild animals under strict guidelines for food and fur, self-defense, and property protection. Laws restrict against the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns, or feathers.
This is the second most hypocritical "sister" of this "conservation" justification. Why is the casual killing of certain wildlife for antlers, horns or feathers not allowed but killing others just for their fur is ok? Especially if the killing of them for their fur is NOT for personal use but for commercial gain(prohibited by Sister # 2)? If we can kill a bobcat just for its fur, should we not also be allowed to kill an elk just for its antlers and, as they do with the tens of thousands of furbearers, leave their meat to rot? Also, why are thousands of cougars killed across the west by "sport" hunters? They are not eaten, the fur is not used, and contrary to "beliefs", they are not threatening us nor our property? Is this not a frivolous use of this species now known to be essential to ecosystem health? Or are not these conservationist hunters interested in the health of the ecosystems that support their "sport"? Lastly, what about the millions, yes millions of native species declared, not by public process but by hunters to be "varmints"? Animals that can be killed on sight, anytime, anywhere. Are they used for food? Is that ground squirrel really a threat to you or your property? Is this not frivolous killing? Where are these "conservation hunters"?
#6 – International Resources: Wildlife migrate freely across boundaries and so states and federal agencies should coordinate wildlife (oops I mean game) management strategies.
This is just the state game agencies mentality expanded to the national and international level. Ideally what this means is that not only do the citizens of a state have a say in wildlife but also the citizens of the nation or of neighboring countries have a say. So, not only should all the citizens of Wyoming for example, have a say in what happens to wolves but all the citizens of the U.S. and even Canada and Mexico. Is this how the conservationist hunters interpret this? What a laugh, they are the first to invoke "states" rights in any discussion regarding wildlife in their state, including on Federal land that is owned by ALL of us! Why the author lists this as an argument in support of hunting is again a mystery.
# 7 – Scientific Management. Sound science is essential to managing and sustaining wildlife and habitats.
Here the author lists…nothing! Maybe she knows that game management in the U.S. is NOT run by science but buy politics and dollars. As mentioned before, the underlying mission of all game agencies is more game in the bag. And it is clear that game agencies will cherry pick, ignore, marginalize any science or scientists that get in the way of meeting this mission. The clearest example of this is regarding the supposed impacts of predators on hunters' favored big game, deer and elk. Scientific study after scientific study has demonstrated that killing predators DO NOT lead to more game in the bag. Scientific study after scientific study has clearly shown that these predators are keystone species (a conservation term most hunter "conservationists don't even know) essential to the health of ecosystems. They should be protected not hunted indiscriminately. But does this science guide the sustainable management of these species? Year after year, these conservationist hunters continue to scream for not only the reduction but the elimination of these species. So yes it is best she did not say much about this sister because it clearly demonstrates just how anti-conservation hunters are.
Besides the feeble arguments the author presents with the regurgitation of the NAM, she also dredges up one of the hunters' favorite justification as to why they thing they are the only true conservationists…they pay the bills.
As this is a major "argument" hunters feel that should shut-up the opposition, we also need to briefly look at it. Again I have written a lot on it and so will be as brief as possible. We have heard it hundreds of times, hunters pay millions, billions of dollars in licenses, to kill animals, excise taxes on guns…to kill animals (and each other). Those millions, billions are used to buy land, improve habitat, introduce wildlife, do research, etc. etc…. Additionally, we are lead to believe that they and only they are doing this, paying these millions, these billions of dollars… And that this by itself should dash the opponents of hunting to the ground, defenseless, defeated, screaming enough enough! you got me! You win!
Instead of "shutting" up the opposition, this should bring a ringing rebuttal that should shut-up the hunters! Why? First of all, all that money, all that land, all that improved habitat are ONLY for the favored game species, to provide more game for the bag. Hunters give lip service to "other wildlife" benefiting but as Kurt Vonnegut so eloquently put it, they don't give a flying F$^# at a rolling donut about those "other" wildlife. This is especially true if that other wildlife gets in the way of more game in the bag, which is the ONLY reason they buy the land or improve the habitat. Ducks Unlimited bought land…for ducksand will kill native species to protect them. Pheasants Forever improves habitat for pheasants, an exotic species, etc. etc. On the other hand, true conservation organizations like the Nature Conservancy and a multitude of land trusts buy millions of acres of land more than hunters and protect it for ALL wildlife. Additionally, the many National Monuments and Parks that we ALL support with our tax dollars and our entrance fees provide habitat for all. What the hunters do pales in comparison and does NOT make them the "ultimate conservationists" as the author contends. The author is right though when she says that hunters care about wildlife and the land in a way that anti-hunters can't understand, nor can most non-hunters. Hunters care only about a small percentage of the wildlife (game) and care for the land only for their own selfish self-serving need to have it produce…more game in the bag. That is NOT conservation.
Instead of "shutting" up the opposition, this should bring a ringing rebuttal that should shut-up the hunters! Why? First of all, all that money, all that land, all that improved habitat are ONLY for the favored game species, to provide more game for the bag. Hunters give lip service to "other wildlife" benefiting but as Kurt Vonnegut so eloquently put it, they don't give a flying F$^# at a rolling donut about those "other" wildlife. This is especially true if that other wildlife gets in the way of more game in the bag, which is the ONLY reason they buy the land or improve the habitat. Ducks Unlimited bought land…for ducksand will kill native species to protect them. Pheasants Forever improves habitat for pheasants, an exotic species, etc. etc. On the other hand, true conservation organizations like the Nature Conservancy and a multitude of land trusts buy millions of acres of land more than hunters and protect it for ALL wildlife. Additionally, the many National Monuments and Parks that we ALL support with our tax dollars and our entrance fees provide habitat for all. What the hunters do pales in comparison and does NOT make them the "ultimate conservationists" as the author contends. The author is right though when she says that hunters care about wildlife and the land in a way that anti-hunters can't understand, nor can most non-hunters. Hunters care only about a small percentage of the wildlife (game) and care for the land only for their own selfish self-serving need to have it produce…more game in the bag. That is NOT conservation.
As for reintroducing wildlife, again, change that to game species only. Were these hunter conservationists spending millions in support of bald eagle restoration? Did they get behind the reintroduction of the wolf? How about the recuperation of the grizzly bear? They not only fought tooth and nail against these reintroductions of essential species for sustainable habitat, they now expect to be rewarded for their efforts against it by being able to kill them! How they can stretch this into any kind of conservation ethic is a wonder. Also let's look at those reintroductions they supported. They point to deer and elk as success stories, and they are to a point but…. First, they were done for selfish reasons, something to hunt, and secondly, bringing back any herbivore without bringing back its predator is an ecological sin, the results of which the Eastern U.S. is currently suffering from with too many deer and will be with the elk the hunter conservationists have reintroduced…only for hunting opportunities! The author admits this conservation failure with the statement of backyards being overrun by deer and turkeys! One last point, I will just mention the hunter supported introductions of exotics, wild boar, oryx, etc. etc. What conservationist will purposely introduce an exotic into an ecosystem???
Now let's talk about the money itself and answer the question the author proposed: "Ask a mountain biker, bird watcher, or hiker how much money they contributed to pay for public land they're enjoying. I will only say that this author should have familiarized herself with the latest report from the Fish and Wildlife Service before she foolishly made that statement. This report clearly demonstrates that hunting brings in the LEAST of all regarding revenues. People who want to see wildlife…alive,those bird-watchers, those hikers, first of all outnumber hunters by more than 7 fold and outspend them ($75.9 BILLION) by 3 times! Additionally, land trusts have spent over $2.2 BILLION ayear on protecting lands, again for all wildlife, not just a select few. That is twice as much as the paltry $1.1 billion from a "self-imposed" tax that most hunters today would not even think of supporting! Now let's add the state and federal PUBLIC lands that we ALL pay for! The National Park Service budget alone has been around $3 BILLION a year. The current president wants to cut that back to $2 billion, are the hunters outraged? They are not surprisingly silent! Why! Because they can't kill animals in the Parks so why bother! But back to point, lets now add the Forest Service, plus the BLM, plus the Fish and Wildlife Service, plus state parks, etc. etc.
Those 10's of BILLIONS of dollars come from ALL of us. So if we are going to determine who the true conservationist is by the amount of money they spend on land and wildlife, ask hunters how much did they contribute to ALL wildlife and not just on those few species they can kill. Ask them, then ask them who is the "ultimate conservationist". It sure in the h$#% is not hunters! In summary, the use of the NAM as a "in your face" rebuttal to anti-hunters (and it appears the rest of us too!) fails because the NAM is a failure. Why is it a failure? Because it is full of contradictions, hypocrisies, AND the hunters themselves don't even follow it! It is a feel-good document written by hunters to hunters in an effort to justify hunting.
It has NOTHING to do with conservation. Secondly, I wish they would stop trying to use the economic argument in support of their contention that they are doing the most for wildlife, it is embarrassing. It is embarrassing because they do NOT spend even close to the amount the rest of us do on wildlife and the lands that support it. They just cannot win the economic argument. Also these puny efforts they do engage in are so self-centered on the few species they want to hunt that these monies actually hinder true conservation efforts, e.g. killing of predators, introduction of herbivores without their predators, introduction of exotics, altering habitats.
It has NOTHING to do with conservation. Secondly, I wish they would stop trying to use the economic argument in support of their contention that they are doing the most for wildlife, it is embarrassing. It is embarrassing because they do NOT spend even close to the amount the rest of us do on wildlife and the lands that support it. They just cannot win the economic argument. Also these puny efforts they do engage in are so self-centered on the few species they want to hunt that these monies actually hinder true conservation efforts, e.g. killing of predators, introduction of herbivores without their predators, introduction of exotics, altering habitats.
Besides being the poorest arguments they could use, the worse part is that it actually deludes them into believing that they are the "ultimate conservationists. It makes them think that they and they alone are the guardians of ALL wildlife, doing more for wildlife than anyone else. It is this delusionary self-importancethat justifies to them their continued refusal to sit down with the rest of us, the other 95%, to talk about true conservation of all wildlife in this country. It keeps them from supporting the true threats that face all wildlife. Only when they realize they are NOT the only ones who pay for wildlife or are concerned about them, will they then maybe start to become true conservationist. Until then, they are just a bully minority that feels wildlife and whole ecosystems should be sacrificed to maintain their "rights" to hunt. When the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation truly believes we need cougars and wolves along with the elk, then it can call itself a conservation organization. Until then they are just elk ranchers willing to sacrifice ecosystems for "more game in the bag". That is NOT conservation and hunters are not conservationists.
John Laundre
READ MORE ABOUT THE CONSERVATION OUTLOOK OF JOHN LAUNDRE
IN HIS LANDMARK STUDY ON "PREDATION RISK AND FEAR"
John Laundre
READ MORE ABOUT THE CONSERVATION OUTLOOK OF JOHN LAUNDRE
IN HIS LANDMARK STUDY ON "PREDATION RISK AND FEAR"
The Landscape of Fear: Ecological Implications of Being Afraid
The Open Ecology Journal, 2010, 3: 1-7
John W. Laundre, Lucina Hernandez, William J. Ripple
Department of Biological Sciences, SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126, USA.
No comments:
Post a Comment